FIRST SECTION
\nDECISION
\nApplication no. 42249\/15
\n\u0141ukasz J\u0118DRUCH
\nagainst Poland<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16\u00a0January 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Ale\u0161 Pejchal, President,
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek,
\nJovan Ilievski, judges,<\/p>\n
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 August 2015,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 8 November 2016 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant\u2019s reply to that declaration,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr\u0141ukaszJ\u0119druch, is a Polish national who was born in 1984 and lives in Zlotow. He was represented before the Court by Mr\u00a0P.\u00a0K\u0142adoczny, from the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Polish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Mrs J.\u00a0Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was charged with murder, assault and battery. In 2008 criminal proceedings against him were discontinued on the grounds that he could not be held criminally liable on account of his mental illness (schizophrenia). The court applied a security measure and placed him in a psychiatric hospital. On 14 October 2014 expert psychiatrists noted in their periodical opinion that there had been an improvement in the applicant\u2019s condition and recommended his release. However, the courts refused to release him on the grounds that his family could not guarantee that he would continue his treatment if at liberty. The applicant was eventually released on 21 December 2015.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that despite the fact that the experts had confirmed in October 2014 that his condition had improved the domestic courts had refused to release him from hospital.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 May 2016 the application was communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts had refused to release him from a psychiatric hospital despite the fact that his condition had improved.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, the Government informed the Court by a letter of 8\u00a0November 2016 that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested that the Court strike out the application, in accordance with Article\u00a037 of the Convention. \u00a0The declaration provided as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cThe Government hereby wish to express \u2013 by way of a unilateral declaration \u2013 their acknowledgement that the applicant was deprived of his liberty after 14 October 2014 in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (e) of the Convention.<\/p>\n Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 25,000 (twenty five thousand Polish zlotys), which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the individual circumstances of the present case, as well as the Court\u2019s case-law in respect of similar cases …<\/p>\n The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months of the date of the notification of the decision taken by the Court, pursuant to Article 37 \u00a7 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points …<\/p>\n The Government respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be accepted by the Court as [an example of] \u2018any other reason\u2019 to justify striking the case out of the Court\u2019s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention …\u201d<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0By a letter of 14 December 2016 the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. Firstly, he argued that his case could not be considered \u201crepetitive\u201d since none of the cases referred to by the Government had concerned a similar issue that is a disregard of psychiatric opinions by the domestic courts.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Secondly, the applicant alleged that the amount of just satisfaction proposed by the Government was too low.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0Thirdly, he was of the view that his case was not exceptional but highlighted a systemic problem relating to involuntary psychiatric detention in Poland.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that Article\u00a037 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) enables the Court, in particular, to strike a case out of its list if, \u201cfor any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application\u201d.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0It also reiterates that in certain circumstances it may strike out an application under Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government, even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0To that end, the Court has examined the declarationin the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the TahsinAcar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307\/95, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a075-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602\/02, 26\u00a0June\u00a02007; and Sulwi\u0144ska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953\/03, 18 September 2007).<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about a violation of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7 1 (e) of the Convention (see, for example, K.C.v. Poland, no.\u00a031199\/12, 25 November 2014; K\u0119dzior v. Poland, no.\u00a045026\/07, 16\u00a0October 2012; Biziuk v. Poland (no. 2), no. 24580\/06, 17 January 2012; and Grabowski v. Poland, no. 57722\/12, 30 June 2015).<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government\u2019s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed \u2013 which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases \u2013 the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c)).<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0Moreover, in the light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 \u00a7 1 in fine).<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0Finally, the Court emphasises that should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article\u00a037 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (Josipovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369\/07, 4 March 2008).<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government\u2019s declaration under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (e) of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;<\/p>\n Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 8 February 2018.<\/p>\n Renata Degener\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ale\u0161Pejchal
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n